Tells section from SSHE

I haven't been on these forums for too long, so I don't know if this topic has been brought up before.

The Tells section of SSHE really bothered me. The information in there is mostly wrong. I realize that most people on here hardly ever play live and this section is mostly useless to them. But people who are planning to play live should not reference this section of the book. It goes against any other advice I've seen from other pros on tells, and it goes against what I've seen from personal experience. The saying pros use is "Weak means strong, and strong means weak". This book is essentially saying "Weak means weak, and strong means strong". This isnt a variance in Small Stakes compared to Medium/High Stakes. If anything, the "weak means strong" saying applys more to Small Stakes since most players are amateurs and don't realize they're giving these off these tells.

The advice of "Attack weakness ferociously" is just plain wrong. While there are a few times weakness is genuine, it's mostly a cover for strength. It also implys that when your opponent puts in his bet in a more diliberate motion, that this is a sign of strength. Anyone who has even minor knowledge of poker tells knows this is really a sign of weakness. This is Poker Tells 101.

Anyone who's read Mike Caro's Book of Poker Tells would know how false this section is. I've never seen any other pros give this advice of "attack weakness" before. I actually can't believe this section made it to print. It has me wondering if any other sections in the book are completely wrong too.

Someone please let me know if this has been discussed before on here.

[Alpha13]

Agreed, also the part about not wearing shades is stupid. People DO try to read your eyes for info. Be safe and cover that [censored] up so they don't have a chance of reading you

[zephed]

This isn't the important part of the book, guys.

[EStreet20]

Miller's point here was that in SSHE, you didn't have to worry so much about tells etc or your opponent's bahavior, more that just playing a straightforward game will win in Small Stakes.

Good luck,
Matt

PS Post stuff like this in the books/software forum.

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed, also the part about not wearing shades is stupid. People DO try to read your eyes for info. Be safe and cover that [censored] up so they don't have a chance of reading you

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody who plays high stakes poker wears sunglasses during cash games. You'd think that they would since their opponents are supposedly the most skilled, but they don't. Why do you think this is? Probably because nobody is reading any information from your eyeballs.
-James

[bernie]

Actually, the section is pretty good for the game it describes.

[ QUOTE ]
While there are a few times weakness is genuine, it's mostly a cover for strength. It also implys that when your opponent puts in his bet in a more diliberate motion, that this is a sign of strength. Anyone who has even minor knowledge of poker tells knows this is really a sign of weakness. This is Poker Tells 101.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ever hear a guy apologizing for bluffing on accident because he misread his hand? Think it's genuine? I have. It was pathetic to watch , but it happens. The guy really didn't mean to bluff. I see these types of morons all the time on the lower limits.

First rule of tell play is to decide whether the opponent is acting or not. In small stakes games, many players aren't acting. Among other reasons, they just aren't sophisticated enough unless they make it very obvious. Many times when they act weak, they are weak. Of course, not all the time, but a good portion. You're giving these types of opponents too much credit.

Bet speed being a big tell in these games. Which lends itself to strong meaning strong and vice versa. Like when a passive player instant raises you as your chips are still settling on the felt. He has the goods the greater percentage of the time. Other times, this move can be just that, a move. You're completely ignoring knowledge of the opponent here and way overgeneralizing. Considering the opponent doing the action is also Tells 101.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who's read Mike Caro's Book of Poker Tells would know how false this section is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read it and I disagree completely. Not with Caro, but with you. Even caro states that different tells mean different stuff depending on who's sending it. It could mean the complete opposite. So in saying that Ed's is false, well, you're full of it. Nothing is written in stone. Caro's book also wasn't really aimed at your typical small stake player of today. Though it does have some great ideas as to what to look for.

b

[phish]

Actually, against most unsophisticated recreational players, weak means weak. They're not trying to deceive; they're just acting normally unaware that someone else is picking up on it.

It's only against the more serious (not necessarily good) players who are deliberately trying to mislead you that weak means strong. And it's pretty easy to tell the conscious 'fake' tells from genuine ones. Also, Caro's book is a bit outdated. He gleaned his info from the draw games years ago where phony tells were much more blatant. Playing holdem or stud these days, it's really not that important.

[adamstewart]

An old thread of mine - one of my first actually.


(Note: Bernie was all over that thread too [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] )



** LINK **

Adam

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed, also the part about not wearing shades is stupid. People DO try to read your eyes for info. Be safe and cover that [censored] up so they don't have a chance of reading you

[/ QUOTE ]

The most effective tell I've found in my experiences playing low limit no limit live in Atlantic city is that the ones wearing sunglasses are invariably the fish.

As far as personal experience, I don't see that many really weak players in small stakes these days. It's so rare that someone actually does misread their hands that I don't even consider it in the games I've played. The really weak player who isn't sure of what he has is the exception, not the rule. This is my personal experience playing $2-4 and $3-6 live games. Maybe the games you play are loaded with players weak enough to not know if they're bluffing or not. It sounds like a very good game to be in. But I know not all small stakes games are filled with these really weak players.